Re: Celtics Post-Game Thread (Collection of past threads)

[NYCelt]

NE and Steve,

As you both point out Perk's performance has oddly dropped off for some time now. I haven't seen anything to attribute it to; for example, he's not playing through an injury that's been written about. I didn't think much of it when Lopez dominated him recently because Perk had missed a game with the flu and Lopez' game is rising fast. Maybe there was more to it.

Steve, as you mentioned, we certainly need him to return to form, especially on the defensive end and on the boards.

With nothing else to pin it on, my only guess is he'll snap out of it soon. I had my fingers crossed as I typed that last line.

Regards

[Sam]

Sorry to be so tardy with this post. I had the entire thing written this morning but hadn’t saved it and lost all of it during a phone call. What an idiot!

Anyway, this game was lost by two points, but I still enjoyed watching many elements of it, largely because it produced a sort of
playoff tingle. Sort of like September when the smell of autumn is in the air. The very hot Bucks were slightly favored at home, and they won by two. It was a hard-fought game with at least 10 ties and 11 lead changes.

The main difference was that the Bucks succeeded in capitalizing on their main weapons: the ambidextrous length of Andrew Bogut (25 points, 5 offensive and 12 defensive boards), the perimeter sniping of Carlos Delfino (5-8 from the arc), the jumpers of John Salmons (16 points, and the penetration and mid-range game of Brandon Jennings (13 points).

Contrast that with 3-13 shooting by Paul Pierce and an 0-3 submission by Ray Allen, and it’s obvious that the Celtics did not capitalize on those two assets. Yes, KG got off the schneid by shooting 7-13 with 10 rebounds, and Rondo had 20 points (including an exemplary 8-9 from the line). But the starters’ game in general ranged from functional to moribund. (More on this shortly.)

The bench played better in the first half than in the second, outscoring the Bucks bench 29-11. (For the game, the bench was
approximately +4 and the starters were -6 on the +/- scale.) The two new guys offered glimmers in somewhat limited minutes. Michael Finley hit his first two shots as a Celtic, scoring on a long jumper and a longer three-pointer in his 8 minutes.
Nate Robinson was a bit more of a trick-or-treater, going 2-4 from three-point range and compiling one rebound, one assists but two turnovers in his 11 minutes. Those two obviously will benefit from learning the system better; but it’s obvious that
they’re confident and filled with desire.

Neither team enjoyed a noteworthy lead for very long. When the Celtics fell behind by six in the second quarter, they mounted a 12-2 run (love those runs) for a 34-30 lead. The Bucks came right back to lead 35-34 within roughly a minute; and
that’s how the lead tended to see-saw throughout.

About midway through the fourth quarter, Glen Davis tried to blocked a Jennings layup but fouled him hard. Jennings took exception and both were assessed technicals. I felt this was the turning point of the game. The Bucks simply got madder than the Celtics and went on the most significant run of the night to turn a Celtics lead of 77-72 into an 86-79 Bucks advantage. The last two points of
the run came in the form of a Jennings floater in which he took obvious delight.

Down seven with 2:30 to go, the Celts didn’t quit trying. A solo layup-and-one by Rondo was followed by a KG jumper, and the Bucks had the ball up two points with :53.2 left in the game. The stiff Celtics defense forced a missed jumper, but Bogut grabbed the long offensive rebound to reset the clock. The Bucks misfired again, and the Celts had the ball with a chance to
tie or win and about 8 seconds on the game clock.

The Bucks had a foul to waste, and I was hoping the Celtics would immediately go to the hoop to get it out of the way. But Rondo fiddled and diddled long enough that, by the time Milwaukee committed the foul, there were only something like 3.8 seconds left.
Pierce too a contested jumper, which rimmed out, and the Bucks had their win.

Everyone knows I’m one of the most positive people in the world when it comes to the Boston Celtics. But I have to say the starters are beginning to give me fits. I’ve basically given up hope that, other than Ray’s curls, they’ll move without the ball. They didn’t do much of that in 2008 and still won a championship. But they walk the ball up far too often, limiting their ability to go to second or third options in the half court set. Far too often, an entire halfcourt possession consists of one pass (or even no
passes) and a shot. At the other extreme, they sometimes overpass, giving Perk too much opportunity to commit an
infraction (moving pick, three seconds, whatever).

On four separate occasions, I saw them surprise one another last night, either by moving when it wasn’t expected or by not moving when it was expected. People were being ignored or missed when they were calling for the ball and were wide open.

My own theory (for whatever it’s worth) is that the starting unit is going through a very difficult evolution. It’s one thing for two very influential team leaders (Pierce and Rondo) to have very different styles. But professionals find a way to capitalize on the strengths of both. Too much of the starters’ offense now consists of Rondo isolating on penetration or Pierce isolating on
penetration or a turnaround. Lately, Rondo’s forays to the hoop have been more successful than Pierce’s, but that’s not the point.
The point is the number of missed opportunities that accompany isolations. And, in the meantime, Rondo’s assist totals are dipping (6 and 7 in the last two games). Only 60% of the Celts’ field goals were assisted last night, and the figure usually needed to facilitate a win is 66% or 67%. And the other three guys (KG, Ray and Perk who was 3-9 last night) are struggling to determine where they fit in. Those three dutifully run the same old plays, but without a notable sense of conviction because the plays might or might not come to fruition. The number of broken plays incurred by the Celtics starters is absurd, even though they sometimes score through accidental offense. I don't expect the intensity of end-of-game defense constantly, but they can certainly do a better job of rotating than they do throughout much of a game.

Maybe I’m making far too much of this. But I much prefer to watch the bench play than the starters of late. And I firmly believe the starters have more than enough collective talent to become dominant. Whether or not they eventually do is is up to them and Doc. Probably more them than Doc because of the scarcity of practice time in March. And, finally, I’m sick to death of hearing Celtics say, “We’ve got to this. We’ve got to do that.” Well, shut the hell up and do it!

Don’t worry. I’m in a bad mood because I’ve had to write this whole thing twice. By tonight’s game, I’ll be rooting for them as usual.

Sam

[Jerry Tarkanian]

And, finally, I’m sick to death of hearing Celtics say, “We’ve got to this. We’ve got to do that.” Well, shut the hell up and do it!

To quote Yoda from Star Wars (and I have often):

Do or do not. There is no 'try' !

Tark

[dboss]

Tough loss..time for a big win tonight

dboss

[Sam]

The Griz soundly whipped the Celtics in Boston, starting from about the one-third mark of the first quarter, which ended with a 27-12 Celtics deficit. Most of the responsibility lay with the starters, who played all but the last couple of minutes of the quarter. And despite a couple of brief incursions by the home team later in the game, the Grizzlies either sustained or added to the lead with the final result being a 20-point win. It wasn't really as close as the score would indicate.

The Griz like to drive and dish, and they did that at will. Memphis had a fine FG percentage (55%) but an even better three-point
percentage (56%). They outrebounded the Celts by a monstrous 48-29. As Doc wondered after the game, given all the shots the Celtics missed (45 of them), they should have grabbed more than 6 offensive boards. Every time the Celtics would make a little run, the Griz would come back with some combination of perimeter shots, transition baskets, mid-range jumpers, and easy layups off back cuts and inside handoffs.

For the most part, the Celtics defense was absolutely woeful. Time after time, they were late on rotations or entirely missed them.
Whenever O.J. Mayo (7-8 from the field) or Rudy Gay (10-18) or Mike Conley (5-0) was apparently covered, all he had to do was to back up a step for an open shot or drive around a Celtic to the hoop. As far as I know, all the Celtics have uninjured backs (although I did see Rondo stretching his back a couple of times when shooting free throws.) But none of them had 10 rebounds, as Zach Randolph did after being doubtful for the game with a bad back. Oh, by the way, Marc Gasol had 10 boards as well. Oh, by the way, Gay and Conley also chipped in with 8 and 6 rebounds respectively. KG led the Celtics with 7.

The only Celtic who I thought played a semblance of decent defense was Sheed. He wound up with 3 blocks and 6 steals in 22 minutes, to go along with 11 points. Michael Finley got 14 minutes (some of it in garbage time) and responded with 10 points, including 2-3 fro the arc. So much for the good news, as Ray and Rondo tied for the Celtics scoring lead with 17of the quietest points I've ever seen.

I've maintained, over the past two+ months, that the root of the Celtics problems (especially among the starters) has been poor
execution. I understand that others lay it to lack of effort, and there's no question that they become dispirited in games. But they
don't start games being dispirited. Their failure to execute brings the mood upon them. We've seen, over the past couple of weeks,
scenarios in which they've executed well and have magically been in much better spirits. I happen to believe (but cannot prove) that there's some basic dysfunction occurring among five starters who have now been together (on and off) for nearly three seasons. More specifically between Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo.

I'm not implying that they're feuding or won't pass to one another or anything like that. But they are the two who set the tone for the Boston offense, and both of them have the tendency to try to take over games when things start going south.

I don't thing it's necessarily a good thing when the guy (1) who's supposed to be the primary ball distributor winds up in single dights for assists in three consecutive games (2) has averaged, over those three games, 16% more field goal attempts than any
other Celtic.

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing when your alleged go-to guy is shooting 41% over the past three games and, during that span, has had more shots blocked than any other Celtic—even Glen Davis.

These things (in addition to the dearth of shots for Ray against the Bucks) suggest to me an offense that's out of whack. And, when their offense stalls, the Celtics have gotten into a habit of hanging their heads on defense. I realize that it's supposed to be the
defense that galvanizes the offense; but lately it's been the offense that's been dragging down the defense.

I still believe that these guys (the starters) have not magically lost their abilities almost overnight. I don't believe they are the kinds of guys whose first, second or third instinct is to dog it. I believe they're in serious dysfunction, and it's up to them and Doc to get them functioning much better together. I still can't recognize any plays in their set offense other than the high double pick and Ray's curls. It doesn't take an expert to see that they're a step behind on defense. I don't claim to be an expert in basketball execution, but I believe it doesn't take an expert to see problems such as failure to move the ball, pushing the ball up, shooting too many contested shots rather than looking for the extra pass, etc. And I'm betting Doc and staff have diagnosed the problems but are dealing with some personalities that have them treading more lightly than they should.

Meanwhile, in each of the last several games, the bench has performed better (or less badly) than the starters, and I have high hopes for the second unit once they get used to one another. Currently Nate is dribbling around wondering what to do half the time. But, to his credit, he's playing hard at both ends, and he's not just being a gunner out there. Tonight he had 6 assists in his 13 minutes of play and was going out of his way to set up teammates. The percentage of assists to made field goals was just okay in the first three quarters (52%) but zoomed up to 80% in the fourth, mainly due to Nate's five assists in that stanza.

I'll positively never quit on this team, and I hope others will join me on focusing more on diagnostics and remedies than on simply moaning at this crucial point in the season.

Sam

[bobc33]

Sam, I'll never quit on the team either regardless of their record. Heck I watched and rooted for them every game in the 24 and 58 2006-2007 season. As I watched tonight my thoughts were why are they less consistent this year and I think there may be three possibilities:
* They feel like they will be able to turn it on when needed, whether in a particular game or when the playoffs arrive. This may result in a half step loss of quickness for every player in almost all situations as I frequently notice them being "slow to the ball.". It obviously is not a conscious decision but I think is prevalent.
* The Big Three are 2 years older, and KG in particular has had a tough injury. Perhaps these three are another half step slower.
* They have tuned out Doc, which can happen to the best of coaches.

Put those first two together and the Cs consistently don't get the loose balls or the long rebounds they would have 2 years ago.

If they have tuned out Doc it doesn't bode well.

Not an exclusive list by any means, nor do I have solutions, but just my thoughts on their play since Christmas.

[Jerry Tarkanian]

I still believe that these guys (the starters) have not magically lost their abilities almost overnight.

Sam,

Nor do I...............do believe they are not appropriate in the roles they are being asked to assume. More so than age, I look at career minutes played and our Big 3 is at the high end of the spectrum. Not a criticism, they are that as a result of having played at a quite high level.

It must be apparent to better eyes than mine that KG and PP are not capable of maintaining sterling play for long intervals, and, due to injury and
synergy issues with those around them, may not again.

I suggested a couple months ago PP as a sixth man in the classic Celt's tradition. As a Bailey Howell-esque bench presence he could be a dramatic lift not as a member of a 'second unit' (a concept I abhor)but rather as a 'hired gun' of sorts Doc could utilize to exploit match ups and quick start the offense. His energy level would likely be much higher in 26-28 minutes and
I predict his stat line would remain intact. Howell, if memory serves, made the transition from go to guy to complementary presence well....all the way to the HOF.

With most teams a star would object and be placated. With the C's the tradition of the role and the team's extraordinary history of stars assuming it would take away any stigma, as well as 'force' Pierce to accept it.

I'd then use differing starting line ups on a match up basis. Perhaps start Rondo and Nate against some opponents with RA on the wing, against others move Daniels into PP's slot. A Davis/KP/KG/RA/Rondo lineup might work in other scenarios. Sheed might also be interjected when a favorable situation demanded it.

Just feel to do the same things and expect different results is............shall we say a definition of insanity, and with the experience and talent of the team seems a shame to tie ones self to what was a fine plan 2 years ago but not so much now. I know you preach familiarity and consistent roles, I have had better luck exploiting match ups with my own talented and deep
squads. If players are inflexible they become part of the problem, not the solution.

[112288]

Quit! Did We quit when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor! (Animal House)

Now I more incline to believe one of my earlier posts that raised the question, Is the team uncoachable? Tommy pointed out that they are in a funk and the team members have to fix it. Doc and staff have done all they can do. I think he is right.

112288

[bobc33]

112288 it does come down to the players, but I think Doc must have to try reaching into the bag of tricks if we get any more games even close to this effort.

[mrkleen09]

This was the first game in a number of years that I actually channel surfed during. I could not stand to watch how disgraceful it was from cover to cover. I saw enough to see the lack of effort and lack of pride.

I am not drawing any big conclusions, but if KG, Pierce and Ray dont have a players only meeting - focusing on energy, desire and pride - this team is in big trouble.

That was a disgrace...and if getting booed at home doesn't shake you up, you are beyond hope.

[beat]

I guess I was a lucky one. Marcus had a late pratice 6:30 to 9:15. Took my mom out to the mall and walked around for a couple hours before going to pick him up.

Checked the score when we got home and was (fill in the blank). I have no idea of the feeling a person has when they are told by their doctor they have a very serious desease but I guess that's about how I felt.

I keep thinking (hoping) something will click, a fire will get lit, but the glimmers are harder to come by.

Take your pick, seems on any given night 40-60% of the starters are in a funk. The bench is well a bench and is expected to hold fort and for the most part is but our starters?

Has age reared its head all at once for the B3? So many questions and for now so few answers. Season is winding down and this is the time to send messages to other teams, right now no one fears us, no one.

I compare us to Jello with no mold.

Even as our prior big three was on the downside we still were a force for several years.

Are there nagging injuries that we are unaware of?

All pro atheletes careers end and watching them as shadows of their former self is difficult and probably much more for them as they just can't preform as they used to. Father time waits for no one.

Mid March and our playoff spot will pit us against ? regardless whom that is we will have a battle.

I have not given up till we are out, but I am also realistic that going anywhere in the playoffs past the first round may not be in the stars.

It is against my nature to be gloom and doom but man this team certainly challenges one's optimistic outlook!

beat

[sinus007]

Hi,
First off, I'm very sad.
Second, IMHO if you take games with Cavs, Nets, Wizards, the last 2 games, they all exhibit the same symptoms of a "disease" that could be summarized by 'something's rotten in the kingdom of Denmark'.
Last night in the last minutes of the game Tommy said that it's not couching but I think that partially it is. I think it's Doc's and his staff responsibility to keep the team on their toes.
I can't understand how the team that started 23-5 turned into such mediocrity?
Hope somebody knows exactly what's going on and is working on the solution.

AK

[Sam]

Guys, I have to tell you how much I appreciate all of your responses. They're all thoughtful and as constructive as could be hoped for under the circumstances.

Note to Jerry: Bailey Howell started almost exclusively while he was a Celtic, which ended after the 1969-70 season. He then played one year in Philly, and I don't know whether or not he started for them. As an aside, in looking up his stats in Basketball Reference (they don't show games started, but I'm quite sure about the Celtics part because he became a good personal friend), he was amazingly durable, at least during the regular season. (I didn't look up the playoffs.) During his last five seasons in the league, Bails played in 405 out of a possible 410 games (98.8%).

I've been expecting people to talk about deterioration through age or "mileage." I can't buy that:

• I don't believe a team is motoring along on Christmas Day and suddenly becomes old en masse.

• I don't believe the miles they ran in the Christmas Day game suddenly tipped the balance between okay mileage and too much mileage.

• I do believe that the starters clearly look dysfunctional on offense and all too much of the time on defense. And big parts of the dysfunction are Rondo and Perk. They're not old. Some of Rondo's passes have literally had me holding my head in my hands. Perk seems to have reverted to being surprised all the time.

• It could well be that the Three Amigos, having played long careers, already being HOF candidates, and having won a ring, find themselves less able to "get themselves up" when things go south, although I still don't know why they could do it on Christmas Day and not now. But I believe there's something going on that's making things go wrong with the execution, and I also believe it's not simply age-related (although feelings of "seniority" could be involved if there's some sort of turf struggle between Pierce and Rondo).

Jerry, I also abhor the two-unit system. I greatly prefer situational substitutions, and it's probably the biggest bone of contention I've had with Doc (whom I basically like) over the years. I just don't know how realistic it is to expect him to change that philosophy with 20+ games left to go in the regular season, when he's got enough on his hands integrating two new guys without many practices and coping with the very problem we're discussing (whatever the root of it).

I want to end this post by reinforcing what I said at the top. Your constructive posts are so refreshing that I'm in the debt of all of you because hand-wringing alone ain't going to get the job done.

Best to all of you,

Sam

[beat]

Sam

About the age thing. I really do think that does come into play somewhat. Like you said we started out so well but maintaing the good start ended. Injuries played a part no doubt but the car already had a few miles on 3 of the 4 tires. And when the road got slippery we got no grip. And we just can't pull in the pits and get new ones.

I never played sports at any great level but did play a very competitive fastpitch softball league for many years. I was never a power hitter but a punch and judy slap and run like hell guy. I always counted on my speed and could count on it. Loved playing the outfield and tracking down flyballs. Then I remember the game when I was about 34 ish and a new season was underway. Of course we had a few practices "mostly to practice the aftergame routene in the bar" I was in Left field and the first dam inning a player hits one to my left up the gap. I turned and went to track it down and I quickly realized I wasn't getting there. I know I would have had no issue just the year before but I had obviously lost a couple of steps.

No We never trained much (heck we never trained at all( but being on the farm haying ect I was allways in pretty good shape.

Anyway rambling a bit too much.

Bottom line I have no doubt (at least in my mind) that age is a factor in this case. How much I don't know.

No time to panic...................but I am trying to locate the button just to have it ready.

beat

[bobheckler]

My day started off bad, one of my crowns came out during lunch, and went downhill from there culminating with this debacle. I went to a bar and had a 23 oz Great White after this game and that didn't help a bit. I knew I was in trouble.

1. This was the best game I've seen from Rasheed all year by far. 6 steals!! Good defense and generally good shot selection. I'm trying to find a silver lining here. I'm trying really, really hard.

2. As I mentioned in the game on thread, there was a play where the ball was dribbling towards Rondo and away from a Griz, and Rondo just stood there and waited for the ball to come to him. The Griz, of course, remembered he had legs and used them. Guess who got the ball. No ganas. None. That play I just described made me want to throw up. I don't care what Rondo's stats say today. He had no ganas last night. All night he half-heartedly followed behind his man on screens and then just gave up and relied on our interior defenders to do his job for him.

3. According to the Globe, the fans were booing Pierce last night. I have said that his on/off inconsistent play is starting to irk me. I just passed "irked" and am now moving into full-blown disgust. Dare I ask the question, "Is Paul Pierce done?"

4. Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo are all-stars based upon last night's performances. We didn't stop them from doing anything. We'd make believe we were defending them and then let them take wide-open jumpers from the foul line. It's like Pierce and Allen were channeling Sasha Eurobitch. I'm getting hives just thinking about that.

5. Finley was the other glimmer. He hit his shots, played hard and just generally looked like he had some pride. Celtic Pride. Discovered last night in new/newer Celtics Rasheed Wallace and Michael Finley only. I saw none coming from players who have played their entire career in green. ESPECIALLY the starters.

6. Hashem Thabeet, he of the record-setting fall from grace (#2 pick in the draft, demoted to D-league), outplayed Kendrick Perkins. That sums up Perk's play for the last month and the overall quality of play last night.

7. We missed 5 or 6 bunnies. If we had hit 4 of those bunnies (I don't consider it unreasonable to expect an 65-80% shooting percentage on barely contested shots from 5' and in) then our team fg% would be almost 49% last night. There's nothing wrong with that. Not one bit. Our 63% ft% is an embarrassment. Our 9 turnovers is GREAT!! GREAT!! We scored 91 points and we're averaging just over 93. So, other than a missing some shots we shouldn't miss and improving our fts, our offense wasn't too awful last night (anytime Ray Allen is 0-6 from 3, you know it's gotta be a full moon or something). In fact, if we just hit one of those blown bunnies, we'd be scoring our average. Our problem was our defense, or lack thereof. We gave up 111 points to a team that has only been averaging 103. For a team that is identified by its defense, that's a real big problem.

There has been a lot of talk about chemistry on this board. Much of our chemistry problems have been attributed to injuries and the inability of the new Celtics (Sheed, Quis, Shelden) to work with the players they expected to be playing with (in the case of Quis, he hasn't been able to play with anybody, because he was one of the injured). So, we had 5-man units that were never meant to be and players who were supposed to be getting more rest not getting it. It now appears that was a false scent. Not that injuries don't affect chemistry, they do and no doubt were a contributing factor, but it is pretty obvious now that the essence of our chemistry issues are due to something different than injuries. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it's not about thumbs, knees or ankles. We are now, officially, dysfunctional.

bob

[spike]

First, you have to give the opponents some credit. The Bucks and the Grizzlies aren't the Knicks and the Nets. There's talent on both those teams. The Bucks and Griz entered these two games with the superior attitude; they knew they were going to win and that attitude carried them through. By contrast, the Celtics attitude was tentative at best. They didn't take these teams as seriously as they should have. They seemed clueless during critical moments. Worst of all, they didn't come together under pressure, but played too often as individuals.

As Napoleon said, "In war, the moral is to the physical as three to one." Basketball is war. Because of that, some of the blame has to go to the coach, who's responsible for getting his team in the proper moral frame of mind.

Next, I've thought for some time now that Doc needs to make a statement of some kind to the team. Tark's suggestion of switching Paul Pierce to the sixth man role works for me. It's a wake-up call, the message being that no individual takes precedence over the team. Also, if Paul or anyone else has an injury that's hurting the team, Doc has to have the cojones to sit him down. Furthermore, if Rondo is trying to channel Pierce, that might send him the proper message, too. Another move would be to start Sheed against a guy like Bogut and bring Perk in after six minutes or so.

Danny tweaked the line-up by bringing in a couple of new guys and now Doc has to do something to light a fire under their collective anal cavity.

Lastly, in a seven game series, I would take the Celtics over the Bucks or the Grizzlies, so these losses proved nothing.

[Sam]

I still can't buy the age thing. All three Amigos suddenly aged overnight? No such thing as coincidence. Rondo letting a ball dribble away? Perk having a bounce pass go right through his legs? Was it their age? Nope, I'm just not buying the age thing.

Conversely, Bob's correct in saying Sheed had his best game as a Celtic, and Finley's looking pretty good. Oldest guys on the team? Sorry, not buying the age thing. There's dysfunctional stuff going on among the starters. They're trying full-court passes with about a 10% chance of success. They're defaulting to free-lance ball at the first signs of problems. They're standing and watching opponents score.

KG went to the floor against the Bucks and made a great play. He didn't look all that old at that moment. And therein lies the problem. They have moments. They have spurts. They make runs. They even do it late in the game. Those are not signs of old age. Nope, not buying the age thing.

For some reason or other, they just don't seem to have a "feel" for the game. They're not in rhythm (and this, of all teams, needs to be in rhythm to succeed). They're thinking when they should be reacting instinctively. I'm quite certain (although I'm not astute enough to be able to prove it with a lot of details) that there are missed assignments all over the place (both offensively and defensively).

If I were Doc, even though there aren't a lot of practices, these guys would be getting in-flight entertainment from the instant they step on a plane to the instant the debark. Free showings of their performances, complete with stop-action, slow-mo, whatever. And ringing commentary from the coaching staff. No card games, no lavatory visits—bring an extra pair of pants if you have to.

Instead of walk-throughs and shootarounds when there's no time for real practice, I'd have them check their ipods and youpods at the door and sit their pods down and watch revealing film. And, if there were any unrest among the troops, I'd speak to each "leader" individually and say, "Do you really want to compete for a championship. If you do, then do you have a better suggestion to cure what ails us. And don't give me any of the usual crap you've memorized to satisfy the media. This team is screwing with my vocation and their own vocations, and I need you to bust your hump in helping me to fix it." All of that would be my introduction. Then I'd get really serious about it.

Every one of us can see failures in execution out there. Re-watching on tape, aside from inducing visits to the ceramic bus, makes at least many of the transgressions crystal clear. Presumably the coaches are far more adept than we are at knowing what these guys should be doing and pointing out deficiencies. I don't get it. I still watch the post-game sessions with Doc, Paul and KG...but only because I'm thinking of writing a book entitled, "Triteness 'R Us."

Sam

[swish]

To me the greatest quality of the 07-08 and the 08-09 teams was the intensity that they exhibited in every game throughout the season. Indeed I suspect, there was a raging fire burning deep within each player that drove them to remarkable sucess. Could it be that after reaching the promised land in 07-08 that the fire no longer burns with such intensity? Could it be that the added years have made it a little more difficult to "Rise to the occasion" on a daily basis? They will be in the playoffs so there is still hope that the team will be able to recapture that magical formula of 07-08 and rise to the occasion for one last Hurrah. Time will tell.

swish

[bigpygme]

despite bob's explanation of how our offense wasn't really off, or not far off, against the Grizzlies, it sure seems off to me. to me, it looks like our stalwarts are just not showing up with their previous (pre Xmas) success, no matter that they almost managed their average.

i am not thinking it's age either, but it sure is SOMETHING, and calling it "dysfunctional" is just another way of saying we don't know what the problem is and can't explain it.

it's not on either Rondo or Pierce (or anyone else) to carry the team, it's on the TEAM to carry the team. maybe the idea of a "go-to guy" is part of the problem instead of a solution. to find a go-to guy, just pass the ball more - if they're moving, someone's open !!

mostly, i am very intrigued by the line-up shuffle idea initiated by Tark and echoed by others. i like the idea of PP as 6th man. he would not, i dare day, be a second coming of Hondo, but that might put him in a place to max his contributions more effectively.

didn't even mention D yet. hustle on D and our offense will probably follow. at least, that's our heritage, and recent history as well. maybe the most basic O cure is better D. (that, and hitting the bunnies, for goodness' sake!)

not going away, not giving up, glad we added Finley to the club, Sheed can be a real floor leader the way he played last game, like what Quis brings, KG is gradually coming back to better form (if not the KG of old, at least better). c'mon, Doc, tell em the truth and bring these guys up to speed !! no reason to hold back - i don't see a fragile ego amongst the bunch of em. go Celtics ...

Michael

[Pumpsie Green]

Disgraceful guys. Not much more you can say. I don't think there is anyone here who thinks that the Grizzlies are the more talented club. So something is clearly wrong. Easy to guess what it COULD be. At this point I have no idea. Old age? Injuries? Lack of effort? Over-rated talent? Inability to be coached? Its anybody's guess.
So I am going to again quote Belichick, and others: "It is what it is". I don't see it changing this year.

[KellyGreen17]

I had the misfortune of being at this game. It was painful and it definitely had me looking for the remote control! It was very frustrating to watch them play with such a lack of effort. Someone mentioned seeing Rondo watch a loose ball roll a good 10 ft. and not even make an attempt to grab it. My head almost exploded.

That said, this is just one game. The fact that we've played more than 3/4 of the season and have only been blown out 3 times, even with all the injuries and inconsistencies, is pretty damn good in my book. We're not the powerhouse that we were in '07-'08 so we shouldn't expect the road to the championship to be as smooth as it was then.

I wasn't exactly cheering last night (there weren't many opportunities to), but I certainly wasn't one of the boo'ers. I feel like a lot of the C's problems this year are mental and hearing that from their fans isn't going to help. I'm disappointed in their performance last night, but not enough to give up on the season! Go Celtics!

[bobheckler]

To me the greatest quality of the 07-08 and the 08-09 teams was the intensity that they exhibited in every game throughout the season. Indeed I suspect, there was a raging fire burning deep within each player that drove them to remarkable sucess. Could it be that after reaching the promised land in 07-08 that the fire no longer burns with such intensity? Could it be that the added years have made it a little more difficult to "Rise to the occasion" on a daily basis? They will be in the playoffs so there is still hope that the team will be able to recapture that magical formula of 07-08 and rise to the occasion for one last Hurrah. Time will tell.

swish

swish,

To me the greatest quality of the 07-08 and the 08-09 teams was the intensity that they exhibited in every game throughout the season. Indeed I suspect, there was a raging fire burning deep within each player that drove them to remarkable sucess = ganas. They don't have any now.

bob

[Sam]

To see someone proclaim that he doesn't see the Celtics situation changing, based on (1) zero ability to diagnose the situation and (2) an admittedly sketchy knowledge base just begs the rhetorical question: Who cares what an ill-informed person without a clue predicts? That's a perfect illustration of posting mainly to seize an opportunity to pile on the gloom gratuitiously.

Thanks to all who, while obviously concerned, are working hard to cope with the situation constructively and not quitting on their team.

Sam

[swish]

Bob

I started playing couch manager---coach back in the baseball season of 1947. Shortly thereafter I added Basketball and all the other major sports in both the college and professional world. While it has been a lot of fun down through the years I learned that while I could identify the problem(everyone can) but,often not knowing the cause ( lack of all the inside info only available to the staff etc.) made my opinion on how to correct the problem nothing more than a educated guess. I ate enough "crow" down through the years to last a lifetime, so I don't go there very often any more. I prefer to just sit back and see what hand has been dealt for each game. And at a time like this I just look for some sort of event or happening to take place to cause a momentum shift that will carry the Celts to yet another Banner. If its not to be--What can you do about it?

swish

[cowens/oldschool]

To see someone proclaim that he doesn't see the Celtics situation changing, based on (1) zero ability to diagnose the situation and (2) an admittedly sketchy knowledge base just begs the rhetorical question: Who cares what an ill-informed person without a clue predicts? That's a perfect illustration of posting mainly to seize an opportunity to pile on the gloom gratuitiously.

Thanks to all who, while obviously concerned, are working hard to cope with the situation constructively and not quitting on their team.

Sam

gee who would that be?

Didn't see the game,but read KG didn't score a basket in first half,was a game recently he also couldn't buy a basket whole game,Ray didn't make one FG game before last,but only took 3 shots and last night couldn't hit a 3.Pierce was at an all star level first 3rd of season,now trouble finishing and the mid range game is gone.There are spurts Ray will still hit his shot and KG will run and score on an alley opp,but its as obvious as KG's diminished rebounding,that these guys can't carry a team anymore.I mean CARRY as in carry a team on your back and not for a stretch,but for enough both ends to extend his will so that imprint tranlates to victories.The team is struggling to win,thats obvious and the Big 3 can still have stretches,glimmers,but nowhere enough to carry us anymore.I think its one part age,one part out of synch as a team leading to us having this bad by our proud standards stretch of medicore play.

The question is if we at least get in synch can we overcome the diminishing effects of age.Pierce can't carry us with the iso game as before and KG can't avg a double in rebounding right now,that sadly is a FACT.Now we have to really suck it up and rely on brains,poise,execution,teamwork,synergy of all the parts working as one to overcome the youthful energy and athleticism of the other good teams.We've got 20 games to deal with our mortality and still figure out a style to win.

[Sponsored content]